Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)
Ompal Yadav vs Farhan Empexo Export And Import Co on 9 February, 2026 cites

Milind Shripad Chandurkar vs Kalim M.Khan & Anr on 3 March, 2011

Relying upon Milind Shripad Chandurkar vs. Kalim M. Khan12 and Ashwani Kumar (supra), the learned counsel further submitted that the respondent failed to prove his alleged status of being the sole proprietor of M/s. Farhan Empexo Export and Import Co. and no documentary proof was ever adduced. The same goes to the root of maintainability of the Complaint before the learned Trial Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 181 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Rajesh Jain vs Ajay Singh on 9 October, 2023

14. As such, the presumption under Section 118(a) and Section 139 of the N.I. Act was attracted and the burden lay upon the petitioner to rebut the above presumption by raising a probable defence either by leading direct evidence or by pointing out serious contradictions or improbabilities in the respondent's case, as held by the Apex Court in Rajesh Jain vs. Ajay Singh13 which is as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - A Kumar - Full Document

Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010

In view thereof, since, admittedly, the signature affixed on the Cheque involved [Ex. CWI/B] was of the petitioner, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan,14 it was ipso facto sufficient to presume the existence of a 'legally enforceable debt', for which the onus was upon the petitioner herein to rebut it. Since, undisputedly the petitioner refused to lead any evidence before the learned Trial Court, his defence was based on his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., which discloses that he was unable to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 9567 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document
1